I'm sorry if I seem too stupid for asking what the question "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" means. I know I'm not you and I know I'm not dead, for example, so I'm tempted to answer "No", but is this some kind of a trick question? Could anybody please explain it to me?

(17-07-2012 05:45 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: I'm sorry if I seem too stupid for asking what the question "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" means. I know I'm not you and I know I'm not dead, for example, so I'm tempted to answer "No", but is this some kind of a trick question? Could anybody please explain it to me?

In the manner of the OP (original post), it is a theist dodge to get the atheist to confess a lack of certainty about the existence of god. The irony is, of course, that they ask us to question our certainty while never questioning their own. Typical hypocrisy, in other words.

Fuckers.

For the deeper philosophical question, asking yourself such gives you an insight into the extent of your dogmatism. And yeah, we all got some dogma; it's good to go in there and clear out the excess once in a while.

(17-07-2012 05:45 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: I'm sorry if I seem too stupid for asking what the question "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" means. I know I'm not you and I know I'm not dead, for example, so I'm tempted to answer "No", but is this some kind of a trick question? Could anybody please explain it to me?

In the manner of the OP (original post), it is a theist dodge to get the atheist to confess a lack of certainty about the existence of god. The irony is, of course, that they ask us to question our certainty while never questioning their own. Typical hypocrisy, in other words.

Fuckers.

For the deeper philosophical question, asking yourself such gives you an insight into the extent of your dogmatism. And yeah, we all got some dogma; it's good to go in there and clear out the excess once in a while.

I still don't see the validity of the question, or how an answer other than "no" would satisfy it. I know that the universe exists and there's life in it. Can I be wrong? No, the fact that somebody is asking the question means that both the universe and people exist. Can giraffes live underwater? Can 2+2=3? Can the earth be filled with chocolate? Can I be typing this while floating mid-air? Does prayer work? No, and I could go on with as many silly questions as these ones. The reason I know that I can't be wrong about *everything* is because of the evidence. I could be wrong about *some* things, of course, but not about *everything* I know. And if the reason for this question is to force me to admit that maybe I'm wrong about the existence/non-existence of X (where X=god, bigfoot or the invisible pink unicorn), I'd still look at the evidence to decide one way or another whether X exists or not. The things that I believe, I believe because of the best evidence for or against it at any given time, evidence that can be independently corroborated by others as well. I don't believe in X "just in case" X is true. And I certainly don't believe in X when all the evidence points in the opposite direction. I don't jump out of balconies in case I'm wrong about gravity. What am I missing here? Sorry if I'm too thick to understand the question, I'm just trying to learn what this is all about.

The question itself is prefectly valid, what in this case is extremely suspect is the voracity and motives of the questioner. The answer is of course, yes I could be wrong, the fact that when they are asked the exact same question they at first hedge then state they cant be wrong makes the conversation only useful as a vechile to highlight there aggrogance and hypocracy.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.

I have one question that these clown never seem to be able to answer despite it being a very simple question.

Define "know".

For some odd reason they can never seem to come up with an answer to this. I wouldn't think it's that hard since all you need to do is put a definition for the debate out there but it just shows how they want to hold a double standard of the word in place so they can "know" something non believers don't.

I've personally found it's the quickest way to bust them on the double standard without having to say much at all before I get to walk away and leave them to ponder what "know" means in a presuppositional world.

(17-07-2012 09:36 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: I still don't see the validity of the question...

Welcome to theology.

(17-07-2012 09:36 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: I know that the universe exists and there's life in it. Can I be wrong? No, the fact that somebody is asking the question means that both the universe and people exist.

(17-07-2012 09:36 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: Can the earth be filled with chocolate?

Unlikely.

(17-07-2012 09:36 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: Can I be typing this while floating mid-air?

If you're in orbit.

(17-07-2012 09:36 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: Does prayer work?

Prayed to Gwyneth Paltrow one time. Never again. Evers.

(17-07-2012 09:36 AM)zihuatanejo Wrote: I don't believe in X "just in case" X is true. And I certainly don't believe in X when all the evidence points in the opposite direction. I don't jump out of balconies in case I'm wrong about gravity. What am I missing here? Sorry if I'm too thick to understand the question, I'm just trying to learn what this is all about.

Thanks!
Z

Yeah. Yours is the rational position. But theists don't much care for rational. With non-locality floating around, nobody with any intelligence nor integrity stands on probability one. The evangelical theist, however, subverts these, supposedly in "the name of a higher power," but in actually to feed his/her own ego.